Wayne, there is no need to give yourself any unecessary guilt. Even divorce can be forgiven if you confess it as sin. My interpretation of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 does not at all force you to disannul the second marriage. If you have been married again, then stay married to your second wife. Two wrongs does not make a right. However, this does not excuse the SIN. Just like any other sin, it can be forgiven, and one can move on.

But to state that it is NOT sin is a whole different ballgame; for then you open up the door to lasciouviousness.

I seriously doubt that your position is held by the majority of Protestant Churches since the Reformation. If you are speaking since 1960, then you may be right. But before then, I seriously doubt that was the consensus.

This exhortation unto holiness, is not pride my friend; it is truth. Pride is when one supposes that his "special" circumstance is outside the bounds of God's prescriptive Word.

"Divorce and re-mariage is biblical."

Only to those who have more faith in themselves than the word of God.

"What God hath put together, let NO MAN put asunder."

What is it about NO MAN that you cannot understand?

Now continuing my thought....

You lied, when you said "Till death do us part." You lied when you said to God and man, "For better or for worse." You desecrated the picture of Christ and the Church. God does not divorce his church my friend when they go awhoring after other gods. No, he goes after them. He seeks them with tender love.

Hey Lurker, I forgot to announce the day of fasting so that you can join as we seek for God to hear us as we strive in "Operation Change a Life."

You think that's bizzare.

Allow me to demonstrate to you what bizarre is. Bizarre is ignoring the consensus of all the dictionaries in the world; choosing the vaguest one you can find; and forcing it to state "of people married to each other" when it states "of people NOT married to each other."

Now that's bizarre.

You are trying to justify your personal divorce by creating a definition that does not exist anywhere in the world except in your own mind.

"I think you are trying to find something with which you can use to throw false accusations around. It's really none of your business."

I think that I have revealed the truth of the matter, and deep within your depraved heart you known that it is true. You have been divorced since you have been saved, and in your struggle between wanting another woman you had to find a rationale to justify your wicked sin of adultery. Yes, wicked sin. You lied, when you said "Till death do us part." You lied when you said to God and man, "For better or for worse."

How about keeping your vows, you pathetic wimp.
________________________________________
Ladies and gentleman, if you learn anything about such rhetoric, you can learn this:

"Does it state in this verse that one of them is married? Would that fit the Oxford definition of fornication as being between two people not married to each other?"

Come on Wayne, you are practicing eisogesis again. What do you insist on adding to the Scriptures more than what is there? Just because one party is married does not give you the right to make up your own definition.

The son commited fornication; the woman committed adultery. Really, its not rocket science.

To tell you that they are not married to each other. How else can intercourse between two unmarried people be described, silly?

You would have a point if Oxford stated that one of them is married. Unfortunately it does not state that and so you fall into the error of adding to what is not there.

Even if you were correctm you fall in danger of placing one dictionary in contradiction to all others. That is quite ridiculous, do you not think?

OXford DOES NOT state that one is married and the other is not. The only definition that is being denied is Wayne's definition, not Oxford's.

I will make it a point of prayer tonight for your older brother, Pathfinder.

(1)Church tradition has always been against divorce.

(2)I do not form my theology around one pet verse. Especially if the context completely contradicts it.

(3)I am not the one who fell into the trap in adding more to a definition than what it states. You have.

It's quite apparent that you are the one holding the questionable position.

Trust him for what? That he will predestined them to go wherever he wants them to go. That's hardly trust. You will be more intellectually honest in telling him, "Sorry sucker, don't matter how much you desire them to go to heaven. There is not any amount of prayer that will change wherever God has predestined them. Best you sit back and cross your fingers. Hopefully God has not predetermined them to go to hell."
_______________________________________
"Blessings to you and all the Israel of God."

Well, at least I understand where you are coming from.

Wayne, listen to me, open up your heart. You are adding to the definition more than what is there. It's called eisogesis. Even if you were right, you still have a problem of Jesus forbidding something and then a couple verses later endorsing it.

If you insist that fornication is an act commited by a married person, then I can see how you would use Matthew 19:9 to justify the sin of divorce.

I believe that my position is more tenable because it does not involve obscuring the definition of a common (well-known) word. It seems to me that there is a personal reason why you are going to such extremes to justify what Jesus forbids. I want you to know that there is no sin that Jesus can't forgive. Those that have been divorced in my congregation, I simply tell them to ask for forgiveness, make restitution if necessary and move on forgetting the things that are past.

But, back to the subject, a man who aspires the pastorate, though forgiven, would still be disqualified.

You may need to highlight the part of your definition that supports your view. I do not think anyone could see it.

You wrote:
"fornicate (of people not married to each other)have sexual intercourse"

I do not see anything there about married people.

The definition I looked up myself from [URL=http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=fornication&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname]]]Oxford Dictionary[/URL] states:

"have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to"

I am sorry to break it to you but fornication and adultery is not the same thing.

Do you believe that adultery and fornication is essentially the same thing?

Now that will take some twisting there.

No my friend the Scripture is very clear:
"6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

What you are saying is that you are allowed to put asunder to what God placed together.

It's a shame that you have to rely on one verse against the multiple of verses that teach otherwise. Even the context of the verse you choose to twist betrays your position. I am not sure what your definition of fornication is, but I am sure that you have succumbed to the Calvinist tactic of fabricating definitions to suit your purposes.

A preacher last Wednesday night nailed it on the head when he stated, "People do not leave good doctrine for bad doctrine. They leave good doctrine for sin. Then they are forced to create bad doctrine."